Is frequent the theatre Sin?

Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 10 clearly state that the stronger are to defer to the weaker in matters of conscience, without casting judgment upon them. So all this banter about how Rom. 14 gives "me" the right to do what to do is a clear violation of that principle.

Love would say, "If attending the theatre causes my brother to offend, then I will not attend the theatre as long as the world stands."

 

Very true, but that sword cuts both ways.

"The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

And If I eat, Rom 14 clearly indicates that those who do not are not to speak evil of it, since it is an extrabiblical issue. We are speaking specifically of the act of attending a movie at a theatre. Not going to see a wicked movie, that would be clearly covered by other concrete Biblical principles. Lets use for example, Finding Nemo as the movie we are attending.

IF the content is wicked, its wrong
IF a brother is caused to sin (that is what Paul means by causing someone to offend) by my actions its wrong - see more below
IF I am placing the theatre and its entertainment in a place higher than God in my life, its wrong

However,
IF someone is "offended" in the modern sense of the word, its really their issue, they need to get over it.

I do not try to convince people to come see movies with me if they have a problem with it. I do not have any problem telling them what movies I went to see, and explaining why I think the movie is worthy of my time. If they are assuming the worst, the problem is not with me, its with them. My actions cannot be used as an excuse to sin. The problem of causing a brother to sin would come into play if I were attempting to convince someone to go even if their conscience would prohibit them. My options in that case are to either abstain myself, clearly indicate that their position is one that they must embrace given the state of their conscience on the particular issue, or assist them in aligning their conscience with the Word of God, which IMO, if they feel the theatre itself is wicked, they have done what paul warns about in Ephesians and have gone beyond the text, or more likely, have been indoctrinated by someone who did so.

"Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God.
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.
For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?"

Either way, my attendance of the theatre is not the issue.

If I determined that someone in my sphere of influence was quenching their conscience in order to be involved with an activity that I have no problem with, I would respond in love, and attempt to help them deal with their conscience, either by adjusting their underlying principles to align with scripture, evaluating my own actions, or by indicating to them that they need to be acting in faith, and cannot go against their conscience, even if I deem the action ,by virtue of studying the Word, to be innocent.

No, That clearly goes beyond what you can say Biblically. You have every right to determine that for your own life, but I will have to account for what I do with my life before God, you really have nothing to say about that. Besides the fact that its just plain incorrect.

 

So you have no problem with abstaining from every appearance of evil, as long as you get to decide what is evil?

 

Yes and in fact we all decide in many situations what is evil and what is not.

For instance some people have decided that using a computer to get on the evil, filth infested internet (especially considering the new practice of the pop-up invasion) even for a good purpose is indeed a compromise of the Christian principle of avoiding the appearance of evil.

On the other hand many have decided differently.

HankD

 

What He said.

We all do it, I am just honest about it, and don't pretend that it should be my way or the highway.

Good men will disagree on extrabiblical issues, and you cannot dogmatically state anything that you can't tie directly back to the text.

Fortunately, God has given us a great resource in determining what is evil and what is not. We really don't have that much work to do in the matter, so I don't understand why folks want to add to it, for their own man centered reasons, or to avoid having to actually change they way they respond to situations, rather they just avoid them out of hand. Doesn't bear much resemblance to the Life of Christ as I recall.

 

Christians are to judge all things as good or evil, holy or profane, clean or unclean. We are to prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. This is no small task, and only mature, practiced Christians are equal to it. That's not my verdict, that's the testimony of the Spririt. "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil," Heb. 5:14.

The Spirit in that verse did not say that those of full age use only the straightforward, explicit passages of Scripture (the milk of the Word) to make moral judgments. On the contrary, the Spirit's judgment is that those who use only milk are "unskilful in the word of righteousness," for they are babes (5:13). Very much of what God wants to teach us is implicit, not in the explicit, prima facia reading only. Much of our discernment is based on the principles undergirding the straightforward maxims of Scripture. Who would have predicted that Christ would use Ex. 3:6 to establish the fact of the Resurrection (Matt. 22:32)? Neither the context nor the text appears to say anything about it, but the doctrine is there nonetheless, and the Sadducees were held responsible to know it. The words of the wise are dark, or hidden sayings, Prov. 1:6. ,It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter, Prov. 25:2.

The main difference between milk and strong food is that milk is easily digested, and strong food isn't. To benefit from reading the Bible, one needs to do more than simply read it. One must meditate on it, Psalm 1:2. That is how Christ saw the Resurrection in Ex. 3:6. It is the engrafted word that is able to save one's soul, James 1:21. It is a lifelong discipline, and only those who practice it can become skilful in the Word of righteousness and be considered wise enough to be teachers, Heb. 5:12. Certainly there are those principles that are easily discerned by a single and casual perusal of the Scriptures, but most are not.

So you can see how large a task and how weighty a responsibility it is to put a difference between good and evil. It is no task for the neophyte or the simpleton. Exactly where one draws the line will depend entirely on his knowledge of God. For this reason novices are disqualified from serving as bishops and deacons.

 

I am proud to say, I go to the theater every Sunday!

Our church meets in one!

 

The clear context of Ephesians 5:11-16 is that of Christians doing something sinful or speaking of something sinful. It does not mean they have to remove themselves from the world(like the quakers).

If I am reading a news paper and there are articles or even photos I do not approve of, does this make the paper of no redeemable quality? You would say yes(if you are consistant with your reasoning) and I would say no, it still has redeemable value.

Maybe you are like some who say, well only if it is necessary. But I see no exception for "only if it necessary". We live in a sin-cursed world, and we as Christians must be careful not to indulge in those activities which are in and of themselves sinful.

Watching a movie in and of itself is not sinful. It can become sinful, if the content of the movie is wicked.

IFBReformer

 

Aaron,

Actually Romans 14 is pretty balanced and if Romans 14 simply meant whoever is the weakest determines the standards for everyone else than Paul would not have even needed to write Romans 14. But he was try to teach Christians how to live together with one anothers strengths and weaknesses.

What Paul talked about never eating meat again, it is clear from the context of the passage that it was hyberably(exageration to make a point)-(I know I am spelling that wrong). Otherwise it would not have made any sense for him to say to the weaker brother not to judge the stronger brother - that would have been pointless.

Paul was saying that if believe an activity is not displeasing to the Lord, but my brother does, I should not put it in his face. If he is uncomfortable with it then I should not talk about a movie I just saw at the theater this weekend.

But on the other side, if that weaker brother is driving down the road on the weekend and happens to see my entering a theater, he should not judge me for doing it - that is exactly what Paul is saying.

IFBReformer

 

It is amazing to me how many times I have seen this statement from people who think like you do and they like you do not realize this statement could be turned right back around at them.

Who gets to decide that is evil?

God does.

When God gives us principles for determining the rightness or wrongness of something - but does not speak specificly on that subject - who gets to decide then? Is it the pope? Is it the Pastor of local church deciding FOR his congregation(does the pastor have legislative authority - maybe that a whole other topic)? Or does it come down to the individual soul liberty of the believer?

IFBReformer

 

Christians are to judge all things as good or evil, holy or profane, clean or unclean. We are to prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. This is no small task, and only mature, practiced Christians are equal to it. That's not my verdict, that's the testimony of the Spririt. "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil," Heb. 5:14.

The Spirit in that verse did not say that those of full age use only the straightforward, explicit passages of Scripture (the milk of the Word) to make moral judgments. On the contrary, the Spirit's judgment is that those who use only milk are "unskilful in the word of righteousness," for they are babes (5:13). Very much of what God wants to teach us is implicit, not in the explicit, prima facia reading only. Much of our discernment is based on the principles undergirding the straightforward maxims of Scripture. Who would have predicted that Christ would use Ex. 3:6 to establish the fact of the Resurrection (Matt. 22:32)? Neither the context nor the text appears to say anything about it, but the doctrine is there nonetheless, and the Sadducees were held responsible to know it. The words of the wise are dark, or hidden sayings, Prov. 1:6. ,It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter, Prov. 25:2.

The main difference between milk and strong food is that milk is easily digested, and strong food isn't. To benefit from reading the Bible, one needs to do more than simply read it. One must meditate on it, Psalm 1:2. That is how Christ saw the Resurrection in Ex. 3:6. It is the engrafted word that is able to save one's soul, James 1:21. It is a lifelong discipline, and only those who practice it can become skilful in the Word of righteousness and be considered wise enough to be teachers, Heb. 5:12. Certainly there are those principles that are easily discerned by a single and casual perusal of the Scriptures, but most are not.

So you can see how large a task and how weighty a responsibility it is to put a difference between good and evil. It is no task for the neophyte or the simpleton. Exactly where one draws the line will depend entirely on his knowledge of God. For this reason novices are disqualified from serving as bishops and deacons. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess what you are trying to say is that most Christians(at least if they don't come to your conclusions) just don't have what it takes to take their Bible and discern the good from the bad. Maybe we should be like the Catholics and just give our Bibles back to the clergy.

It is actually amazing to me to see people(like one I know in particular) who have been saved only a couple years, yet they see principles in the scriptures that take other men years to see. It really is in the gift of understanding, and not so much in the years. Some people go their whole lives and never understand what they read.

Others go their whole lives, believing that all those who do not come to same applications of the scriptures as they do are novices in the scriptures.

IFBReformer

 

It is amazing to me how many times I have seen this statement from people who think like you do and they like you do not realize this statement could be turned right back around at them.

Who gets to decide that is evil?

God does.

When God gives us principles for determining the rightness or wrongness of something - but does not speak specificly on that subject - who gets to decide then? Is it the pope? Is it the Pastor of local church deciding FOR his congregation(does the pastor have legislative authority - maybe that a whole other topic)? Or does it come down to the individual soul liberty of the believer?

IFBReformer </font>[/QUOTE]God decides what is right and wrong? When does God get to make this decision? I think He already has, all I can do is look in the bible and read it. Adultery? Wicked. Fornication? Wicked. Murder? Wicked. Witchcraft? Wicked. Lying? Stealing? Disobedience to parents? Wicked. This list goes on, and it reads like a Hollywood movie review. How much wickedness should we be subjecting ourselves to in the name of entertainment?

 

Comparing the OT to hollywood trash is not just dishonest, it is perverted.

 

It is one thing if a movie glorfies the wicked actions you mention(and many do) then I would agree with you.

But lets take a murder mystery, Police detectives invetigate and track down this killer and bring him to justice, the courts try him and send him to prison. Now it is placed in its proper perspective, how is this wrong to read(in a book) watch on TV or watch at a movie(assuming it is not filled with filthy language and nudity)?

I agree we must be very - very discerning, but there are still books or shows that have redeemable qualities.

The world is full of wickedness, but if a story(whether its a good book) or movie places good against evil, and places in a perspective as to how God views it, then it is not wrong to read or watch.

When I watched Saving Private Ryan - it was a very violent movie, but it showed the realities of war and gave me a much greater appreciation for what my Grandfather and many other brave men did for us. It was violence within its proper perspective and it had a good purpose.

Take the Passion of the Christ, aside from few minor details, it portrays an accurate Roman crucification and gives us a much better appreciation for what our Lord did for us on Calvary.

If I understand your view correctly, you think it is wrong for a Christian to read a book or view a show that shows murder or stealing or any other kind of wickedness unless they are reading it from the Bible?

There are many movies that glorify murders and other wicked people and on those I could agree with you, but if a movie(or book) puts these people in their proper perspective as evil - I see no problem here.

IFBReformer

 

I would normally spend quite some time answering the ridiculous replies to my statements, but my advocate the amazing and credible IFBReformer has pretty much made the points that immediately lept to mind. Ill just follow up the vigorous defense with a hearty amen.


Aaron,
That whole "if only you were as spiritually meaty as me, you'd agree that &lt;fill in the blank&gt; is wrong" argument didn't work the last 25 times you used it to uphold one of your man-centered standards, what makes you think it will now, not to mention the gnostic overtones of such an argument.

 

Dave and IFB,

My post was to rebutt Dave's fallacious assertion that judging right and wrong is a simple task requiring little thought. The Scriptures say otherwise. They say those using only milk are unskilful in the word of righteousness. Is this true or not?

No one can point to any of my posts and say in honesty what you both cried and whined that I said.

I'm sorry if the testimony of the Spirit has undone the comfortable little world that you imagine for yourselves, but then your issues are with God, and not with me.

 

I merely repeated what the Scriptures say. Strong meat is for those who are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Oh, wait. IFB has a personal experience which refutes this verse. We should trust him more.

Do you have a personal experience that refutes 1 Tim. 3:6 too?

 

Aaron,
Just because you confuse the meat of the Word with the pseudo-biblical "truth" that you have somehow gleaned from either out of context scripture, or maybe from some magic enlightenment by the Holy Spirit completely devoid of the text, doesn't invalidate the body of Scripture. IT is you who is proposing an experiential theology based on how you "feel" about a particular issue, and treating it as authoritative.

My statement was an indication of the amount of very applicable scripture on our lifestyle and behavior, and contrasting that with those who feel the need to create a huge body of standards and guidlines that putatively come from the Holy Scriptures when in reality they were sucked out of someones thumb. There is a huge difference between understanding what the Word actually says, and reading into it interpretations that are not there. The discussion of milk and meat is really a reference to doctrine, not whether skirts should be an inch above the knee, or whether a certain building is evil. Those things we are expected to determine what the appropriate response is given the principles of scripture and how they apply to our given cultural context, there is no concrete thou shalt not to cover them. No matter how hard you try to treat those who disagree with you with condescention, it ain't rocket science, and those who make it out to be are doing it for in many cases their own reasons that bear little resemblance to the Christ of the scriptures.

I have yet to have a discussion with you on any issue where there was a disagreement among the parties where you acknowleged that there may be room for difference of opinion when it comes to extrabiblical areas of behavior. It truly is the height of arrogance, and in that I think it is you who perhaps has a problem between you and God. I have yet to detect the testimony of the Spirit in any of your posts, just more out of context scripture and arguments that center around how much more spiritual YOU are and how we should all strive to attain YOUR level of sanctification so we will understand what is so evil about seeing Finding Nemo in the theatre.

 

tr.v. fre·quent·ed, fre·quent·ing, fre·quents (also fr-kwnt)

To pay frequent visits to; be in or at often: frequent a restaurant.

The OP was asked about frequenting the theater. How many times did you see Finding Nemo? If you habitually spend your friday nights in front of the silver screen (let alone 4 hours a day in front of the 'new family altar') you are going to see all kinds of junk. Just because there may be an occasional bright spot in an otherwise dark latrine doesn't mean you should jump in looking for quarters.